RSPCA/news story

[amy_b]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2215054/Cat-owner-killed-limping-pet-feeding-paracetamol-bid-ease-pain.html

why are the RSPCA so far from what they are MEANT to be doing?!!

I agree with the majority of the comments on there that although it was really stupid, (!!!!) the woman had the cats best interests at heart. I think she should have had her wrist slapped, told she was very silly and left alone, not dragged to court?!! Then maybe they could concentrate on looking after some animals?!!
nuts.

 

[LittleBlackMule]

I agree, a very stupid thing to do but obviously done with good intentions.

Yet other people can deliberately and blatantly neglect/abuse/starve animals and the RSPCA won't do anything until there's a dead body...

 

[MiJodsR2BlinkinTite]

Sorry to disagree, but IMO this was "cruelty", albeit a case of "killing by kindness", but cruelty non-the-less.

WTF didn't the silly woman ring the vet? that's all she had to do and the cat would still be alive today.

Poor puss; what a horrible way to die at the hands of an irresponsible owner. Presumably the RSPCA are making an example of her lest other people should decide to save vets bills and do the same thing.

 

[ILuvCowparsely]

of all the |)_(*&^%R$£"! things to do . You don't give human drugs with out a vets advice period. Poor little cat those picture really upset me.


stupid stupid cow.

 

[TheresaW]

Agree with leviathan, and were all those people who commented serious when they said they would have done the same? You wouldn't catch me taking a bit of metacam!

 

[amy_b]

I got the impression she had taken it to the vets and that this was after that.

it just seems very unfair that she got a hefty telling off, her name and face in the paper and yet so, so many MUCH worse stories dont even get the RSPCA's time of day!!

I wouldnt have done the same by any stretch of the imagination but if it was anything like when I recently had my cat spayed they didnt give me any pain relief to give to her, presumably she was in a fair bit of pain for a few days as it is quite major surgery?!! If she was in similar circumstances maybe she wanted to help the cat out? If I had a couple less brain cells I would have when my cat was spayed.

 

[1life]

I was always told that if you are in any doubt, you should contact a vet. You can usually talk to a vet or a veterinary nurse to gain advice without having to pay a visit. Sorry op, but I do feel that it is an important point for the RSPCA to make.

 

[Fantasy_World]

I would never ever give any animal a drug meant for human consumption without prior notification from a vet that it was safe to do so.
I do think that the RSPCA were correct in their response, prosecution and how this story has been published. It should hopefully prove a warning to other owners!

 

[MerrySherryRider]

Foolish woman. The cat suffered a painful death because she didn't want to get a vet despite being registered with the PDSA.
Perhaps publicity from this will help save other pets from a similar fate.

 

[SonnysHumanSlave]

I never knew that you couldnt give dogs or cats paracetemol. However if it had ever gone through my head to do such a thing, I wouldve googled it before hand which would likely tell me its a no no.

 

[Aru]

Is ignorance really an excuse?

She had to do was ring up and ask a vet before she gave the drug or even google it.....she also was registered with the PDSA so treatment would have been free.. She also waited until the cat was dehydrated and collapsed before she looked for help...

Poor cat.

The fact she is quoted as still thinking the med's she gave didn't kill her cat is more than a little concerning!!!She thinks an undiagnosed abscess killed the cat....words fail me...I imagine that attitude may be one of the reasons it went to court. I wonder will her next pet still get some paracetamol if it looks in pain because you know the RSPCA were just persecuting her after all the last one really died of something else...sigh and rant over

I agree with the RSPCA. If nothing else it highlights the issue of people giving medications of animal(worryingly common!)

Cats and dogs but particularity cats process some drugs differently to people. No one should ever give their pet ANY extra medications human or veterinary without checking up with a vet first. That includes ones they have got before....even mixing some common medications can cause serious side effects...

All Drugs are a balancing act between the effective dose and the toxic one and no drug comes without side effects. People need to recognise that and treat them with the respect they deserve.

 

[Star_Chaser]

There is a sentence in that report that might give you a clue as to why she may not have gone straight to the vets...

''At the time she didn’t know she had done wrong, but she didn’t take the cat to the vets in the first place despite having other cats registered with the PDSA.'

The PDSA recently changed their criteria so that it makes it now impossible to bring your pets to their services when in need. You can only attend if you have them registered but they will only register so many and only of a certain type - god forbid you own a pedigree and have fallen on hard times. For an example if you own more than one pedigree dog whether you brought them or rescued them (paying nothing in the process!) then you are up s**t creek without a paddle even in an emergency where the dog or cat is bleeding out from an accident. You'll be lucky to get through the receptionist. It used to be that you could register three pets no matter what they were but now that restriction is to moggies or crosses only (some of which are designer and cost a fortune) with one allowed pedigree.

Sad to say rescues have had to pay the price of people having to give up their pets or made to decided which one to treat - a horrendous thing to ask a person. Charity or not an animal is an animal and they lost my monthly donation the day I had a lovely elderly gentlemen on the phone in tears having to give up his much loved and cared for pets because he could no longer get assistance when or if needed from the PDSA both were elderly and needed regular check ups needless to say he always made a donation slightly above the cost of treatment.

Can only see stories like these becoming more frequent if charities like the PDSA decide to pick and choose who they will and will not treat.

 

[MerrySherryRider]

In all fairness, the PDSA only limit the number of pedigrees per household. I think they do a fantastic job in helping people on low incomes, as do the Blue cross and other charities.
As pet owners we know how expensive vet treatment is and these charities are dependant on donations to do their work. No organisation is perfect, but if we don't support them, animals in need will be a lot worse off.
Even if this lady was not eligible for free treatment, a phone call would have given her advice or a contact which just might have saved the cat's life.

 

[Holly Hocks]

Sorry, but I think this is a massive overreaction by the RSPCA. This woman appears to have been an easy target for a bit of publicity. She probably admitted it all in interview, wasn't awkward or obstructive and another tick in the box for the RSPCA. It was her pet cat - I doubt she set out to deliberately kill it. I just wish they would concentrate on more DELIBERATE cruelty and neglect matters.

 

[Aru]

There is a sentence in that report that might give you a clue as to why she may not have gone straight to the vets...

''At the time she didn’t know she had done wrong, but she didn’t take the cat to the vets in the first place despite having other cats registered with the PDSA.'

The PDSA recently changed their criteria so that it makes it now impossible to bring your pets to their services when in need. You can only attend if you have them registered but they will only register so many and only of a certain type - god forbid you own a pedigree and have fallen on hard times. For an example if you own more than one pedigree dog whether you brought them or rescued them (paying nothing in the process!) then you are up s**t creek without a paddle even in an emergency where the dog or cat is bleeding out from an accident. You'll be lucky to get through the receptionist. It used to be that you could register three pets no matter what they were but now that restriction is to moggies or crosses only (some of which are designer and cost a fortune) with one allowed pedigree.

Sad to say rescues have had to pay the price of people having to give up their pets or made to decided which one to treat - a horrendous thing to ask a person. Charity or not an animal is an animal and they lost my monthly donation the day I had a lovely elderly gentlemen on the phone in tears having to give up his much loved and cared for pets because he could no longer get assistance when or if needed from the PDSA both were elderly and needed regular check ups needless to say he always made a donation slightly above the cost of treatment.

Can only see stories like these becoming more frequent if charities like the PDSA decide to pick and choose who they will and will not treat.

The PDSA changed their policy over a year ago now and have introduced the issue on pedigree's over time and continued to treat long term problems in already registered animals. They informed owners of this and strongly advised pet insurance for those who would be affected in the future.What more could they do?

When you meet someone who's come for free vet care with their two breeding pair pedigree bulldogs and a pug, all with chronic breed related issues that complain about having to pay the very subsidized cost for flea medications then its easier to understand why the policy had to change.The system was being abused.

If people are able to pay a couple of grand for a puppy they should be able to think ahead and organise pet insurance rather than burdening a charity. If you can afford to buy a puppy you take on the responsibility for its care. If you rescue a dog you take on all responsibility for its care. Pet insurance is not that expensive.

Of course you have to qualify for care from the PDSA, otherwise every cheap person in the country would use the charity. Its already abused as it is. Registration is not even that difficult of a process if you qualify. It is based on a criteria that means those with the least means to pay for care have some available so that the animals being most at risk of not having vet care have it available. It not really about supplementing people who fall on hard times. Its about safeguarding animals from neglect and promoting welfare by targeting the areas that need it most.

If you dont fit the criteria then its still your own responsibility to look after your own pets..why not use a normal vet when your cat is bleeding out or gets hit by a car?
People who dont qualify for the PDSA do it everyday. And yes finances come into practice everyday.People make hard decisions about how much they are willing to put towards their pets everyday.Its about taking responsibility, your pet is your responsibility, your call to make on how much you can pay towards treatment.If you cannot afford treatment then your call to make about putting the animal to sleep to stop it suffering or if your lucky enough to have a charity willing to pay then giving it to someone who can pay and will be responsible for it in the future.

If you do qualify for the PDSA then your pets are very very lucky creatures but if the charity can only take on a fixed number in each area.
If the charity was to go broke tomorrow then there would be hugh issues as to many people are relying on it as their is and are not being responsible....overextending services and losing money is a good way to end up closing a charity.

 

[PapaFrita]

Daily Mail? HUGE pinch of salt. MASSIVE

 

[spottybotty]

The PDSA changed their policy over a year ago now and have introduced the issue on pedigree's over time and continued to treat long term problems in already registered animals. They informed owners of this and strongly advised pet insurance for those who would be affected in the future.What more could they do?

When you meet someone who's come for free vet care with their two breeding pair pedigree bulldogs and a pug, all with chronic breed related issues that complain about having to pay the very subsidized cost for flea medications then its easier to understand why the policy had to change.The system was being abused.

If people are able to pay a couple of grand for a puppy they should be able to think ahead and organise pet insurance rather than burdening a charity. If you can afford to buy a puppy you take on the responsibility for its care. If you rescue a dog you take on all responsibility for its care. Pet insurance is not that expensive.

Of course you have to qualify for care from the PDSA, otherwise every cheap person in the country would use the charity. Its already abused as it is. Registration is not even that difficult of a process if you qualify. It is based on a criteria that means those with the least means to pay for care have some available so that the animals being most at risk of not having vet care have it available. It not really about supplementing people who fall on hard times. Its about safeguarding animals from neglect and promoting welfare by targeting the areas that need it most.

If you dont fit the criteria then its still your own responsibility to look after your own pets..why not use a normal vet when your cat is bleeding out or gets hit by a car?
People who dont qualify for the PDSA do it everyday. And yes finances come into practice everyday.People make hard decisions about how much they are willing to put towards their pets everyday.Its about taking responsibility, your pet is your responsibility, your call to make on how much you can pay towards treatment.If you cannot afford treatment then your call to make about putting the animal to sleep to stop it suffering or if your lucky enough to have a charity willing to pay then giving it to someone who can pay and will be responsible for it in the future.

If you do qualify for the PDSA then your pets are very very lucky creatures but if the charity can only take on a fixed number in each area.
If the charity was to go broke tomorrow then there would be hugh issues as to many people are relying on it as their is and are not being responsible....overextending services and losing money is a good way to end up closing a charity.

Here , here, I have seen people abuse this charity first hand. One particuler Owner drives around in a new Mercerdes. You dont have to be registered with any vets to just call up and ask whether its a good idea or not to give an animal paracetamol. I think there is far more to this story than is being reported. Why has this person got 7 cats when she cant afford veterinary treatment for one?